Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new
 basis --- infallibly correct
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2024 11:02:02 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <vgo4ia$3sfle$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vglhij$39mg2$1@dont-email.me>
 <8c2cbbe343934d211ad8c820c963702e70351a27@i2pn2.org>
 <vglk31$3a6hn$1@dont-email.me>
 <19d0838dd000cc4f67c8c64ac6005d5405cf2bd6@i2pn2.org>
 <vglv58$3bn2s$3@dont-email.me>
 <cd6cbe7d70fcc282da94aea2107e48ad4b3f44b5@i2pn2.org>
 <vgm79v$3d9gu$1@dont-email.me>
 <4b24331953934da921cb7547b6ee2058ac9e7254@i2pn2.org>
 <vgmb06$3e37h$1@dont-email.me>
 <2a5107f331836f388ad259bf310311a393c00602@i2pn2.org>
 <vgnsho$3qq7s$2@dont-email.me> <vgo157$n00$1@news.muc.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2024 18:02:03 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="529658128fc1f19cc0ff32f79f31d785";
	logging-data="4079278"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+zRVNyGEsVSzUyh0xSAZOK"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:u5bEQiclxCfehbWMNAul3EDVUYA=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241109-4, 11/9/2024), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vgo157$n00$1@news.muc.de>
Bytes: 3471

On 11/9/2024 10:03 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/9/2024 5:01 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/8/24 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> That formal systems that only apply truth preserving operations
>>>>>>>>>>>> to expressions of their formal language that have been
>>>>>>>>>>>> stipulated to be true cannot possibly be undecidable is proven
>>>>>>>>>>>> to be over-your-head on the basis that you have no actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning as a rebuttal.
>>> Gödel showed otherwise.
> 
>> That is counter-factual within my precise specification.
> 
> That's untrue - you don't have a precise specification.  And even if you
> did, Gödel's theorem would still hold.
> 
>> When truth is only derived by starting with
>> truth and applying truth preserving operations
>> then unprovable in PA becomes untrue in PA.
> 
> No.  Unprovable will remain.
> 

*Like I said you don't pay f-cking attention*
*Like I said you don't pay f-cking attention*
*Like I said you don't pay f-cking attention*

Unprovable(L,x) means Untrue(L,x)
Unprovable(L,~x) means Unfalse(L,x)
~True(L,x) ^ ~True(L, ~x) means ~Truth-Bearer(L,x)

>> Everyone is so sure that whatever I say must be wrong
>> that they don't pay any f-cking attention to what I say.
>> The above paragraph <is> infallibly correct.
> 
> Garbage.  When you spout objectively wrong stuff, people don't need to
> look at the details to know it's wrong.  Wrong is wrong.  Gödel's theorem
> is just as correct as 2 + 2 = 4 is.
> 
> [ .... ]
> 
>> -- 
>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> 


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer